it's become a bit of a bugbear with me over the years. AI is often used in science fiction for the Frankenstein principle, the idea that there are things we are not meant to know, not capable of handling, and if we meddle in those things they will turn around and bite us on the ass. I think that's a poor principle, and I don't think it really fits well into the Trek ethos that exploring and learning new things is inherently good.

More recently some sci fi has explored the idea that AI would really just be another kind of living thing, no more likely to turn out inherently evil than people or cows are. Andromeda started with that premise, though it kinda backtracked on it a little. I find that treating AI as something that will have benefits and drawbacks just like anything else is a more mature and interesting attitude to explore.

Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:But Graham's right in that we can't use those instances to do a mass co0ndemnation of Soong-type androids, or holograms.

GrahamKennedy wrote:it's become a bit of a bugbear with me over the years. AI is often used in science fiction for the Frankenstein principle, the idea that there are things we are not meant to know, not capable of handling, and if we meddle in those things they will turn around and bite us on the ass. I think that's a poor principle, and I don't think it really fits well into the Trek ethos that exploring and learning new things is inherently good.

More recently some sci fi has explored the idea that AI would really just be another kind of living thing, no more likely to turn out inherently evil than people or cows are. Andromeda started with that premise, though it kinda backtracked on it a little. I find that treating AI as something that will have benefits and drawbacks just like anything else is a more mature and interesting attitude to explore.

I agree in both cases but UFP did it with the augments, almost 400 years after eugenic wars/WWIII genetic engineering (in sentients) is still banned. How is not the same?

The difference is that eugenics is an attempt to artificially manipulate the natural selection of a species, and has (in the 'Trek universe) led to war and genocide. The other is just an attempt to further a species that just happens to be smarter, faster, and stronger than us.

As far as AI in sci-fi... I like Gibson's treatment of it in Neuromancer. One was evil, one was misunderstood but ended up doing right according to its own moral compass; but both were presented to be outre, not so easily judged by human standards as we would like. Banks has done a nice job as well, with Minds being so far ahead of us (and with rare exceptions, so centered in their own morality) as to look on humanity with a benign paternal amusement and tolerance.

"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later.""Of course! We never ask questions."

Mikey wrote:The difference is that eugenics is an attempt to artificially manipulate the natural selection of a species, and has (in the 'Trek universe) led to war and genocide. The other is just an attempt to further a species that just happens to be smarter, faster, and stronger than us.

True but that is not the point. They don´t like the genetically improved because they are "superior" and they may became evil, in that sense they are the same as the soong androids.

Mikey wrote:No, they don't like the eugenic "supermen" because those men started a war which devastated populations. AFAIK, Data hasn't.

Only the augment did it. Bashir's friends didn't and yet they are in prisson without having committed any crime just because of what they are. The point is UFP banned any kind of genetic improvements in people because they are potentially dangerous as Lore (and even Data) has demostrated he is.